User talk:Certified.Gangsta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Public Announcement 2 Have one on me 3 Really appropriate? 4 Warning blank and sockpuppetry accusations 5 User:Guardian Tiger Timeline 6 Saddened 7 Recent Developments 8 User talk:ApocalypticDestroyer's 9 Wikiproject Podcasting 10 WikiProject Podcasting Started 11 Taiwan supporters 12 User:ApocalypticDestroyer's appeal 13 Joke banner 13.1 The warning label 13.2 Cost/Benefit 14 Michelle Marsh (model) 15 So you want to be a sysop? 16 New message 17 This is bullshit 18 Your user page banner 19 Saddened 20 Culture of Taiwan 21 Arbitration re: Abu badali 22 Indefinite block of LionheartX 23 3RR 24 Edit warring: Ideogram and Certified.Gangsta 25 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Certified.Gangsta 26 What's up?

[edit] Public Announcement

This is most likely the last time that I address to fellow wikipedians. For some of you who have been following my contributions closely, you may have noticed a significant drop in recent edits. Yup, you're right, I'm officially outta here. I wouldn't rule out some occasional, random edits if I'm in the mood but you probably have seen the last of Bonafide Hustla.

I gotta admit I'm not the best editor on here "temperament-wise". But it should be noted that many Taiwan-related articles are gang-patrolled by Chinese editors, some of them admins. Sadly, no one is willing to take on the case. The other issue is User:Centrx disregard official blocking policy and abuse of admin power. He also move page without consensus and block me for 1 second (unjustified). Both of these are definitely no-no for admins.

Recently, Bish and Giano both left the project. This only emphasizes obvious flaws of the project. I don't blame Jimbo. His idea is great but it just doesn't work anymore as more and more editors join in.

Anyway, 'nuff said already and this is poorly-written anyway. Jiang and RevolverOcelotX have fun POV pushing all you like. (get a life y'all) I got better things to do. holla--Certified.Gangsta 22:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Have one on me

Sorry to see you go, Boney. :-( Me, I haven't left, I've only determined I'm leaving iff. You know, iff Giano's pushed out. This is not a demonstration on my part, it's simply me not wanting to work in an environment that'll do such a thing. Definitely, absolutely, not wanting to. Have one on me, and here's hoping we all get to stick around no matter how dark it's looking right now. Bishonen | talk 22:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Really appropriate?

Is it really appropriate to accuse other people of POV-pushing in a declaration of departure? Not in the general sense of "there are too many POV-pushers here" but specifically by name. Strikes me as at best incivil and at worst a pointed personal attack. If you are leaving, then tell us you are leaving, don't use that departure as a platform to disparage others from. --tjstrf talk 23:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning blank and sockpuppetry accusations

Er, Guardian Tiger, what are you doing? It's absurd and inappropriate to add a {{blatantvandal}} tag to the page of an established user, especially without even telling him what it's about. Bishonen | talk 21:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Apparently, I deleted those unjustified accusation on my talkpage. This is the reason why I'm outta herre. Too many editors are gaming the rules and playing around with semantics.--Certified.Gangsta 02:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I glanced through both Guardian and RevolverOcelotX's contribs, and though they do seem to be on similar subjects nothing in particular seemed to scream SOCKPUPPET at me, though I suppose it's possible. But there's an easy way to resolve this one: Certified.Gangsta provides some diffs proving that he is grounded in his suspicions that Guardian Tiger is a sockpuppet. If he's right, then he was justified in blanking the warning, Guardian's been giving out vengeful talk page warnings and needs blocked as a sockpuppet, etc. If Gangsta can't provide the specific evidence, then Guardian's warning was justified, and Gangsta's just continuing his pattern of disruptively blanking warning messages. --tjstrf talk 02:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Great, someone's here. I'm not gonna fish out diffs. It's just too time-consuming. I'm leaving this place anyway, just don't want ppl messing with my talkpage. Anyway, look at Bruce Lee's history and a whole bunch of other japan, taiwan, or china related articles. It is just too obvious. Look at, Nlu's talkpage, Guardian just implied his a sockpuppet. Wow, new updates, Guardian just started to spam every single involved user's talkpage, it really reminds me of another user, wait it's the same guy, same method.--Certified.Gangsta 02:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Having an edit war about comments and templates on a user's talkpage makes no sense, especially when there's no live dispute going on anywhere except on the page itself. Whether active or departing, unless there were some serious abuse going on, an editor is entitled to leave or remove whatever he or she wants on the editor's own talkpage. Newyorkbrad 04:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to add that I agree with Certified.Gangsta. The "allegations" are obvious beyond a doubt. All somebody has to do is look at the evidence, and ignore the tantrums by the Gaurdian Tiger user. I put up a User Check based upon the fact the page was totally reverted (yes I do mean totally) to a banned users edit. The user Paper Tiger "defended" himself by doing a user check upon me. Although I hadn't done an edit in about a months time he accused me of vandalism and stuck a 3RR on my page. It is a laborious project to compile diffs of edits and personally I felt I was brushed aside without real reasoning. After my request was ignored, I realised by taking part in the endeavor was a lesson in maturity and responsibility. I can't blame the owner of this page for his decision to leave. I don't know about anyone else but I don't have the time to try to win an immaturity contest with a 16 year old H4X0r. I hope everything works out for you and good luck. - ShuckyDucky 04:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on Guardian Tiger's talk page about two or three days ago. He removed it and I reposted it. He stopped editing for at least two days now after making margin edits on a few of the pages I regularly edit. Here's the message I left on his/her talk page:

" Do you also control the user accounts User:Apocalyptic Destroyer and User:RevolverOcelotX? I kind of grew suspicious when the accounts started editing each other pages. For example, your very second edit was to remove a sockpuppet report for Apocalyptic Destroyer and RevolverOcelotX [1].

Also, both you and RevolverOcelotX file the same requests for checking on Certified.Gangsta multiple times with various admins.

Guardian Tiger: [2] [3] [4]

RevolverOcelotX: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

There more, but that's going to take some time to find them all. ShuckyDucky filed checkuser requests, for the same reasons. [10]

Sorry if this sounds rude, but I had a growing suspicion for a while. "

He/she has not responded yet, so I can't hear his side. Either way, I think it's bad practice to go around tagging accounts as sockpuppets. Find the diffs before making allegations is a good rule to practice.
Anyways, I hope you decide to stay with Wikipedia. Take a wikibreak to get rid of some stress and come back when you're ready. Wikipedia is suppose to be fun, so make it fun! =D Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 10:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it virtually impossible that a checkuser will be accepted if "I" am the one filing the checkuser because Revolver will likely bring up those disrupting tactics to the checkuser page. (see [11] , which was rejected due to Revolver's disruption on the page) What I need is someone, hopefully an established editor, to file the checkuser after doing some investigation. I mean, it isn't that hard to notice these 4 users are the same person and the evidence is apparent. One thing Revolver doesn't realize is his sock, User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH, is banned, which means any future socks/sleeper socks are ban-evading socks and should and would be block on sight. Anyway, I will appreciate if an admin make a decisive decision to block him indef. based on his contributions (this way a checkuser needn't to be filed) or an established, respected member of the community request a checkuser after some investigation on the issue.--Certified.Gangsta 19:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's obvious, then it's not for CheckUser. Forget about CheckUser, Boney. I have now reverted some further posting by Guardian Tiger on this page and talked with him. He won't post here again, but he asked me to, in turn, make you stop adding the sock template to his userpage. Well, I hereby request you to stop that. Even if you feel sure you're right about the puppetry, it's a poor idea to keep unilaterally re-adding the tag. Get more eyes involved, please. I suggest you ask Nlu, that I see you've already written to, to specifically review whether or not the sock tag is justifed on the User:Guardian Tiger page, and to be the one to add it if he thinks it is. As an admin, he also has the power to protect the page, if he thinks it appropriate. Bishonen | talk 19:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

I did stop. I mean, that's what Bunch told me to do. Just because the template is there while he's not blocked doesn't help anyway. There's no point putting the template there if y'all admins don't do anything about it. And as for Nlu, he doesn't wanna get involved. I feel defeated, all of my edits are reverted my that fucking sockpuppet (I"m gonna use that word 'cause that what he deserves) and no one gives a fuck about it. If there's no checkuser, admins won't block him. When I seek help from Nlu, Bish, or other admins, he go around spamming their pages and then people gonna be like both of y'all gotta calm down. Well, that's fucked up because I'm trying to report him and get him blocked since he's a ban-evading sock then people thought it's just another dispute between 2 idiots. I've said I'm outta here but I'm not gonna go quietly. As far as I'm concerned he is a sock of User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH, a ban user and should be block on sight. As long as justice is not done, I'm gonna be here. This is a disgrace on wikipedia that a ban-evading sockpuppet can be here for this long and admins just standing idly watching him destroying others edits. In case you didn't notice, he just wrote a whole bunch of personal attacks against me on the checkuser page. I told ya I don't wanna go against him by myself but no one listens. --Certified.Gangsta 22:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Guardian Tiger Timeline

The following timeline does not include previous misconducts by User:RevolverOcelotX and User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH (who is indef. blocked), who is the same person as Guardian Tiger. The events are in chronological order. This link shows the abuse of RevolverOcelotX [[12]]

January 3-Announced I will be leaving wikipedia shortly in response to User:Centrx unjustified 1 second block, unadmin-like conducts, and the lack of response from other administrators. [[13]].

January 3-Discovered the newest sockpuppet of User:RevolverOcelotX, User:Guardian Tiger. Contacted admin User:Nlu and urged him to block this ban evading sock (it is ban-evading because one of the socks,User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH, is banned from editing indefinitely) without checkuser. [[14]]

January 4-User:Nlu suggested WP:AIV. I wanted User:Nlu to investigate and be the one who file the checkuser. [[15]]

January 4-Another sleeper sock, User:Apocalyptic Destroyer, discovered. Contacted User:Nlu, providing some evidence for my reasoning such as the extensive edits in Bruce Lee, hostility toward Japan and Taiwan, etc. Again User:Nlu wanted me to file the checkuser. [[16]]

January 4-User:Nlu promised to take a look at this. I thanked him and reminded him of User:PoolGuy, who was notorious for sockpuppet abuse. A dispute User:Nlu was actively involved in. [[17]] Note that until now, User:Guardian Tiger seemed to be away and no spamming took place. I also did not revert any of his POV edits while waiting for him to get blocked.

January 4-Sockpuppet tags were introduced by me on the userpage of User:Guardian Tiger and User:Apocalyptic Destroyer for the purpose of bring admins attentions into the issue. [[18]] [[19]]

January 5-6 No activity

January 7-I did not log-in that day. User:Guardian Tiger returned from his break and noticed the sockpuppet tag on his userpage. He responded by posting several warnings on my talkpage. [[20]] accusing me of a "blatant" vandal. Admin User:Bishonen asked him what it is about. He interpreted the sock tag as vandalism when it is, in fact, factually true.[[21]] [[22]]

January 8-I returned from my short-break, discovering those accusations. My position was clear right from the start. I did not wish to have ANY interaction with this user whatsoever. My experience with him in his previous accounts contribute to that. I don't even wanna checkuser him, the situation isn't that complicated to escalate into that level. I just want admin to block him so the issue can be over and done with. It's just that simple. I deleted those accusations and provided an explanation for doing that. [[23]]

January 8-Discovered several articles on my watchlist have been move or distort by User:Guardian Tiger. A page move without consensus [[24]] was reverted by me.

January 8-User:Nlu said he couldn't understand the situation since the whole thing is a big mess. [[25]]. User:Guardian Tiger found the thread on User talk:Nlu and make personal attacks toward me also indirectly admit that he is a sock. [[26]]. I tried to persuade User:Nlu to block User:Guardian Tiger without checkuser since the contributions speak for themselves.

January 8-User:Guardian Tiger stepped up his harassment campaign by re-inserting his unjustified warnings, which was again deleted by me. [[27]]

January 8-Several politically motivated edits by User:Guardian Tiger was reverted by me since the admins were unwilling to label him as a sock without checkuser and the only way to protect articles is to revert his edits. [[28]] [[29]] [[30]] [[31]]

January 8-User:Guardian Tiger re-added warnings on my talkpage and again I removed them several times. [[32]] [[33]]

January 8-I decided to seek help from the community. [[34]] [[35]]

January 8-More harassment from User:Guardian Tiger, starting to run out of patience [[36]] [[37]] [[38]] [[39]]

January 9-User:Guardian Tiger still is NOT blocked

January 10-User:Guardian Tiger began stalking my edits and revert everything I edited based on personal vendetta. Some of them totally out of his usual scope, trying to stimulate edit war so he could make me look bad[[40]] [[41]] [[42]]. He also moved a page without consensus and was reverted by me. [[43]] [[44]] [[45]]. POV pushing: [[46]]

January 10-Seek help from the community [[47]] and User:Guardian Tiger spammed the page [[48]]. Persuade User:Nlu to block User:Guardian Tiger or file a checkuser, he refused and wanted me to do it. I refused and told him the likely consequences (checkuser page gets spammed) [[49]]. User:Guardian Tiger once again disrupted an constructive exchange between me and User:Nlu by spamming User talk:Nlu [[50]].

January 10-re-add sock tag until told to stop [[51]]

January 10-Frustration, no admin was willing to do any investigation, checkuser, or blocking. I had to alternatives but to file a checkuser (which is something I desperately not wanting to do right from the start) [[52]]. Just like I predicted, he spammed the checkuser page with unjustified personal attacks against me [[53]]

January 11-User:Guardian Tiger still not blocked, more stalking occured and I reverted his edits based on personal vendetta [[54]] [[55]]...a sneaky, deceitful edit summary [[56]]

Anyway, it's still an ongoing behavior. I guess no one knows how pissed off and frustrated I am. Please, put yourself in my position. The list will be edited if I have time.--Certified.Gangsta 03:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow...that's a detailed diff report. It looks like checkuser is going to pass, so it'll all be cleared up rather soon! Guardian Tiger left a message for me, but he didn't deny my sockpuppet allegation and listed some negative stuff regarding your edits. Thanxs for sticking with Wikipedia even when it got tough. =D Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 07:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad you like it. Unfortunately, the checkuser didn't pass. I guess wikipedia just isn't ready to take a stand against obvious ban-evading socks. (similar case see User:PoolGuy). As for Guardian Tiger, that's his usual tactics, I just noticed he is now questioning admin User:Bishonen's capability as an admin, which is a disgusting, unjustified accusation against her. The same has happened to User:ShuckyDucky.--Certified.Gangsta 22:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saddened

Just like the way I predicted, the checkuser I requested was turned down despite the support of 2 admins. The reason? Because "I" am the one filing it. Apparently User:Essjay thinks it's just a dispute between me and User:Guardian Tiger which is wrong. It really depresses me that admin/checkuser don't look at the merit of the checkuser request but to look at the editor who requested the checkuser. What's even worse is User:Guardian Tiger now begins to launch a harassment campaign against admin User:Bish. Unfortunately, authority (checkuser) refuses to make decisive decision.--Certified.Gangsta 22:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't turned down because it was you filing it, but because Revolver's editing was too old for CheckUser; no technical comparison could be made between the two accounts. I have reviewed the behavioral issues and agree that User:Guardian Tiger is an abusive sock of Revolver. An uninvolved admin, User: Mackensen, has endorsed my call. Guardian Tiger has been blocked, and invited to seek further independent review by means of the unblock template. Bishonen | talk 01:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, Bish. Hopefully he's not gonna come back again, but apparently he chooses to ignore his ban and created a new sock.--Certified.Gangsta 22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Developments

Apparently, User:Guardian Tiger chooses to ignore the ban placed by User:Bishonen and before that, User:Dmcdevit. I'm having a hard time believing User:RevolverOcelotX really lost all those passwords on every single account. The same argument was made when User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH was indef. blocked. And now miraculously, he lost the password to both User:Apocalyptic Destroyer and User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that he is lying. Similar cases can be view on User:Cute 1 4 u and User:PoolGuy, both are main account of disruptive user who are indef. blocked then proceeded to create more sockpuppets to maintain the original block was unjustified.

Sadly, I don't think he is ready to accept the consequences. One of the edit the new sock User:ApocalypticDestroyer's made is an groundless accusation of sockpuppetry against the blocking admin, User:Bishonen. [[57]] I did some investigation and this account, User:Isberg, which Guardian Tiger accused to be a sock of Bishonen, seems to be extremely out of character for Bish especially this edit. [[58]]. In fact, I'm begining to wonder if User:Isberg is created by User:Guardian Tiger, himself, a despicable attempt to attack Bishonen of sockpuppetry. (or it would be highly unlikely that he would find that account given the lack of interaction Isberg made with wiki community as a whole) A classic example of the behavior of other troubled users, especially User:PoolGuy. (see arbitration case[[59]])

As far as I'm concerned, this user is banned. And the ban apply to the editor, not just an account. We shouldn't allow this kind of double-standard because if we ever create a bad example out of this, the lost of password will become a convenient excuse for the creation of ban-evading sockpuppets. That being said, we seriously need to take a hard-line against this user. If he continues to refuse accepting the consequences and defy the regulations on wikipedia, then I'm guessing this talkpage should be protected instead of wasting the community's time. The only way for him to be unblocked is to go through the proper channel, meaning either the community decides to uplift the ban OR sympathetic users decide to appeal to arbCom. Otherwise, this is a violation of WP:POINT and just another attempt by this user to prove the original block is unjustified.--Certified.Gangsta 23:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Responded to you here. Certainly if he offends again he should be punished, but I'm not a great fan of punishing people over and over again for the same mistake. He's promised publically to use just one account from now on. Maybe he will break his word in the future, but I'd like to give him a chance now. All the best, Ben Aveling 07:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Cg, calm down, compare the latest developments on ANI: the user has been blocked indefinitely. Ben, I'm still not sure how you arrive at your conclusions there. The user has hardly been punished over and over (when?) but rather left free to harass Certified.gangsta for far too long. Please try to empathise with both sides. It's no fun to be on the receiving end of such attentions. Bishonen | talk 08:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Ben, when did I "harass" that user? (You claimed I harassed the guy on AN/I) I've been saying since day 1 that I do not wish to have any direct interaction with that user. Another thing is that User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH, who was banned couple of months ago, is a "proven" sock of RevolverOcelotX. Obviously, he's on community ban, which means he has forfeited his right to edit on wikipedia unless the community, one day, decides to reinstate him.--Certified.Gangsta 01:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gangsta, Sorry not to have replied earlier. Too many pages on my watchlist and I didn't notice this edit. By harrasment, I mean that you have been campaigning to have him indef blocked ever since you met him. You have accused him of vandalism and personal attacks and you've told a few untruths. (For eg, claiming that RevolvingOcelotX was indef banned when it wasn't.) In addition, you have been edit warring and POV pushing.

I've spent a great deal of time going through Tiger's contributions, and your timeline, looking for evidence of the things you've said. In the main, I have not found it. Can I trouble you to have a look through the Tiger Timeline, which is (I hope) a neutral presentation of your own timeline, with some comments and discussion. I've tried to be fair to everyone, but maybe I've missed something, or misrepresented something, and I would like your input. I also want to know if you have any questions for Tiger, and under what circumstances you might accept his being unblocked? Thanks, Ben Aveling 10:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't "campaign" to have him blocked since I met him. The only reason I contacted User:Nlu about User:Guardian Tiger is because he is obviously an abusive sock of User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH. I was just shocked that it was so apparent that they are the same person/editor yet no admin bother to perform the actual blocking. It's not campaigning. I have been doing similar stuff in the past ie. discovered sock of User:PoolGuy who has been banned by the community and report them to User:Nlu, since he is a big-time sockpuppet fighter. [[60]] and met no opposition [[61]]. As for campaigning, the only user I contacted is Nlu, Bishonen got involved because Guardian was harassing me on my talkpage. I know User:RevolverOcelotX is not indef. blocked, I never claim he is. I resented your accusation that I was lying. My accusation is based on the ground that User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH is indef. blocked by the community, therefore making User:Guardian Tiger a ban-evading, not to mention, abusive sock. To be fair, basically not one single Taiwan-China-Japan related article is NPOV. (the balance generally tends to tilt toward the pro-Chinese side with the support of a few somewhat nationalistic admins, but not one of them tend of make such drastic, blatant POV as Guardian, others are mostly small tweaks) I admit my behavior is not always optimal (however generally constructive after a bumpy 2 months) but again, this case isn't about me, it's about Guardian. It's a simiple case of ban-evading sock, he is block by the community once, therefore forfeited his right to edit. (User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH) Guardian choose to violate the ban. And as for the timeline, it is only a timeline not evidence against Guardian. The diffs. provided is only for 1 week, it's only the tip of an iceberg. The main reason to block him is not because he is POV pushing, stalking all over the place, it's because his unwillingness to deal with the consequences of the creation of (User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH) by creating User:Apocalyptic Destroyer and User:Guardian Tiger after the indef. block. The indef. block for User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH send him a clear message not to edit unless one day the community is ready to reinstate him. He chooses to ignore it. Basically, the only way he could get unblocked is for the community to uplift the ban and I don't see that to be anytime in the near future. Lastly, "I disengage, I go Zen, I take stuff off my watchlist." (quoting Bish) I gave up discussing those articles, opposition is too strong and people refuse to change their view. In the end, all of my edit is reverted anyway, even if they are good-faith edits. It's like "it's from Bonafide.hustla so it must be wrong and POV pushing". I don't think I'm going to follow the discussion on the new sock of Guardian, what's the point of my input? I believe wikipedia has enough sensible admins out there to handle that. Anyway like I just said (and the announcement on the top of this page), I'm going to gradually disengage from wikipedia, so I'm out. --Certified.Gangsta 18:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

← reindent ←

My apologies, I confused myself over who made the false claim that Revolver was banned. It was ShuckyDucky, not you, and I've struck out what I wrote above. But I wasn't refering only to your most recent request for checkuser, so much as to the original RevolverOcelotX checkuser request.

Probably you're right that he should have appealed his case a lot earlier, but to be fair, he tried to, until his talk page was protected. Think of this as his appeal. And bear in mind that none of his accounts overlap.

04:35, 19 May 2006 User:RevolverOcelotX (Talk | contribs) New user account

01:59, 31 July 2006 Kungfuadam (Talk | contribs) blocked "RevolverOcelotX (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (you (and bonafide hustler) have ended my patiences with these edit wars and attacks on one another)

10:15, 28 July 2006 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) blocked "RevolverOcelotX (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Chinease)

06:11, 5 June 2006 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "RevolverOcelotX (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR at Mao: The Unknown Story)

01:42, 22 May 2006 JoshuaZ (Talk | contribs) blocked "RevolverOcelotX (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RRV and warned other user in dispute about 3RRV so need for cautionary talk warning.)

Most recent contribution: 04:37, 7 September 2006 (hist) (diff) List of cities in China

23:09, 31 October 2006 User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH (Talk | contribs) New user account

04:44, 1 November 2006 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) blocked "RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet of user:RevolverOcelotX)

Most recent contribution: 05:51, 2 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH

07:52, 9 December 2006 User:Apocalyptic Destroyer (Talk | contribs) New user account

08:25, 15 January 2007 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) blocked "Apocalyptic Destroyer (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (community ban for disruption, see Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#.5B.5BUser:Guardian_Tiger.7CGuardian_Tiger.5D.5D_and_the_unblock_template)

Most recent contribution: 00:27, 21 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:NawlinWiki/Archive 6 (self rv)

02:36, 27 December 2006 User:Guardian Tiger (Talk | contribs) New user account

01:10, 13 January 2007 Bishonen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Guardian Tiger (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusive sock of User:RevolverOcelotX)

Most recent contribution: 22:31, 13 January 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Guardian Tiger (?Requesting review of unjustified block)

20:33, 14 January 2007 User:ApocalypticDestroyer's (Talk | contribs) New user account

08:25, 15 January 2007 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) blocked "ApocalypticDestroyer's (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (community ban for disruption, see Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#.5B.5BUser:Guardian_Tiger.7CGuardian_Tiger.5D.5D_and_the_unblock_template)

Regards, Ben Aveling 21:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Updated with block logs, Ben Aveling 06:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to make a couple of comments in regards to what Ben Aveling has said and I hope Certified Gangsta doesn't mind. I posted on this talk page once in the past month, but other than that I've never crossed wiki paths (so to speak) with Certified Gangsta. I do recall seeing he was having problems with Revolver OcelotX about the same as I was. I first noticed Gaurdian Tiger when he deleted a comment of mine about Apocalyptic Destroyer on a talk page. As a matter of fact if you look at the user contributions it is the first edit made. It doesn't take a jump of logic to realise it is the same editor. Apocalyptic Destroyer made a bunch of hit & run edits, making large reversions to pages. This is what my deleted comment was about. The fact that the editor reverted the page back to a banned users edits was kind of a tip off that it was the banned user. Or maybe this is my mistake in calling him 'the banned user' instead of saying the 'editors sock is banned.' Whatever...the guy got banned for his antics and is now at it again. As a matter of fact looking at his recent User Contibs he is doing mass reverts. I was happy to see Bishonen took the time to actually look at the activity of the editor and came to a decision about them. I'm all for fairness and letting people express themselves constructively and all that, but I think I'm not alone when I say it is a bit frustrating to see someone as deviant as the Paper Tiger run around ruining other peoples work. I'm glad that Certified Gangsta took the time to see that ban evading sock got what was coming, I also have no doubt in my mind that he'll be back. ShuckyDucky 05:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear it was the same user, but Tiger was not banned until 01:10, 13 January 2007, long after he last used that account. If you look back, all of his blocks were for avoiding blocks on accounts that were not (at the time) blocked. I think that's unfair. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's obvious to me that you and ApocalypticDestroyer, or whatever he's going by these days, have way more time to waste arguing about this. I would like to beleive that you were fairly objective at one point about this, but I can't help but see that you have been fishhooked by the banned editors arguments. The sock keeps retreading these same arguments until somebody listens. One: Nobody cares whether he uses the accounts at the same time, it was the disruptive behavior that got him banned. Two: He did edit up until the 13th of Jan by just looking at this User Contribs. Three: Looking at my User Contribs I filed a CheckUser On Dec 28th., two full weeks before somebody got around to banning him. I just realised I could go on and on about the ridiculous things the banned editor has done, but I also don't even know how to respond to your last statement. He was blocked for avoiding blocks that were non-existant...really? I think the sock is all about shucking and jiving, obfuscating the point until somebody thinks otherwise. You know what, EFF it. All I can do is throw my hands up, have fun. I will say that I will keep you in mind Mr. Ben Aveling when the sock starts to be disruptive again, I will gladly point out to you when he starts trolling again. ShuckyDucky 12:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to keep in mind that the banning of suckpuppets is to ensure that basic Wikipedia policies are followed and disruptive editing don't occur. It is not to prevent the registration of alternate accounts - which many users do and legitimately so.

On this issue, despite certain misgivings about certain behaviour of RevolverOcelotX and his socks, I am firmly against what seems to be a decision to ban all of his alternate accounts, regardless of the truth of his protestations.

The reason for this is because User:RevolverOcelotX to my mind is not nearly disruptive enough to warrant a permanent ban - which is what it amounts to by banning all of his alternate accounts when the origin is (so he claims) inaccessible and in any case is (in fact) inactive.

For example, to my mind User:Certified.Gangsta's edits have been more disruptive than User:RevolverOcelotX (and I sincerely apologise to User:Certified.Gangsta for making this adverse comment about him on his own talk page), yet no one has seen the need to ban him. --Sumple (Talk) 13:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah "in your mind" . Obviously, everything Guardian edited is something you agree with. If NPOV policy doesn't exist, those are the exact changes you want to make. Your accusation is very biased. Please stop attacking me everywhere and definitely not on my own page.[[62]]. I'm not god on here. I can't influence the admins to get someone blocked. Also, I got no dispute with Guardian since August. This ain't a content dispute, so it got nothing to do with me and my behaviors.--Certified.Gangsta 03:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to leave one last note. Even while the guy is banned, other editors aren't happy with edits he made → User_talk:Apocalyptic_Destroyer. ShuckyDucky 20:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha funny...Wow, more groundless accusations against me. ShuckyDucky ain't my sock. I ain't got no sock. [[63]]--Certified.Gangsta 01:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:ApocalypticDestroyer's

I just want to make it clear that I don't have the power to block this user, so building a case against me seems rather irrelevant. In addition, Ben claimed a harass the guy, I didn't.--Certified.Gangsta 23:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Podcasting

I've noticed that you are a podcaster. Well, recently I've proposed a Wikiproject for podcasting. If you're interested go to the proposal page and list yourself under 'Interested Users'. Thanks, and hope to talk with you again soon...and nice practical joke...btw. Ganfon 19:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for the invite.--Certified.Gangsta 05:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Podcasting Started

The Podcasting WikiProject has been started. Check out the site, and help to get this thing set-up. Thanks! Ganfon 20:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taiwan supporters

I've notice that there are lots of Chinese editers, but there are way more people that support Taiwan, I think.--Jerrypp772000 22:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:ApocalypticDestroyer's appeal

Hi, Just letting you know that I have lodged an appeal at ANI on ApocalypticDestroyer's's behalf. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joke banner

Hi, Boney, long time. I think you're within your rights restoring the joke message banner, but you may want to check out the current addition to the Wikipedia:User page guideline. Here it is. Note ongoing Village Pump discussion here. I just weighed in there. Best, Bishonen | talk 10:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Contrary to the above, you are not within your rights to deliberately disrupt Wikipedia. If you restore the phony software message again, you will be temporarily blocked from editing. —David Levy 02:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of one hour as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. —David Levy 03:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am definitely not a fan of the "practical joke" banners, but consensus on their status seems not to have been reached at this time and would not support blocking for having one unless and until a more formal policy is reached. Any disagreement between admins on this issue should if necessary be discussed on ANI rather than have anyone act unilaterally as has been suggested previously on this page. Certified.Gangsta, having said that, it would not be considered an act of weakness to remove the banner which is proving divisive, and David Levy, it would not be an act of weakness not to carry out your threat of blocking if CG leaves the banner up. If someone doesn't back off on this, I forsee the silliest drama to hit the site since the "Santa Claus Wheel War" on Christmas Eve. Newyorkbrad 03:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Too late. Newyorkbrad 03:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Brad, I will appreciate if you or someone else undo this unjustified block.--Certified.Gangsta 03:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to act unilaterally, which would start a war, but if you want I will take the issue to the noticeboard. Newyorkbrad 03:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you should do that. Thanks. As a compromise, if you unblock me, I won't revert my userpage to prevent further edit war. Even if a discussion were to start, I will want to participate. Please unblock ASAP. It's unjustified anyway--Certified.Gangsta 03:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the above promise, I would urge the blocking admin now to unblock. I'll start a thread at WP:ANI. Newyorkbrad 03:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The promise is only for the next 24 hrs. There is no need to get him involve. He wants to shut me up on the discussion page.--Certified.Gangsta 03:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already unblocked you (and hit about five edit conflicts attempting to reply). —David Levy 03:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I see clear consensus regarding this issue, and the insertion of "deliberate misinformation" has long been viewed as vandalism. Certainly, common sense should be applied, but this is a clear-cut case. —David Levy 03:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

ANI discussion started here. Certified.Gangsta, I think you should honor David Levy's request to leave his warning messages as he wrote them, at least while the discussion is going on, so anyone reading doesn't have to waste time hunting through the page history. Newyorkbrad 03:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As of now, the banner of the archive will go back. I will leave my userpage alone until tomorrow. David Levy, your accusation in my block log and the warning above are misleading. I will remove them after the discussion is over.--Certified.Gangsta 05:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You're entitled to express the above opinion, but it isn't appropriate to excise the warning and block notice from the thread (while leaving everything else intact). This distorts the context by making it appear as though I blocked you without warning or notification. —David Levy 05:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with David about this, Boney. You're making it frustrating to try to piece together what went down. I'd appreciate it if you'd put back all the messages in this thread. (I've unprotected your userpage, btw.) Bishonen | talk 06:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishy. You can put it back on if you want to 'cause I'm not really good at formatting and those kinda stuff.--Certified.Gangsta 06:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't... I tried to figure what had been removed, but I have no idea what, when, or in how may goes—it got too complicated, I'm too sleepy, sorry. I have an idea, though: if you put them on the page, I'll format a nice thread from them. (When I wake up.) Bishonen | talk 06:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Haha g'night, sweet dream!! But seriously, you're working too hard on this. Get some smirnoff and go to sleep. I'll take care of the rest. And dont bother to format until tomorrow morning.--Certified.Gangsta 06:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The warning label

Is this what you want?

If so, then there is consensus that it mustn't confuse bots, so if you must put it back, please make some change to it. Eg

As I've said, I believe you have the right to put it on your page, but it would be to your credit not to exercise that right.

Regards, Ben Aveling 11:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cost/Benefit

CG, leaving aside the question of whether you have the right to use a joke banner in this way, I would like you to consider whether it is truly worth the hassle that has ensued.

I'll grant you that the block was an overreaction on David's part, but he was within his rights to request that you remove the joke banner. There are disputes on Wikipedia about content, there are disputes about format, there are meta-disputes about how people behaved in the resolution of previous disputes. Since you know about Giano and Bishonen, I feel certain that you're aware of just how badly things like this can deteriorate.

The point is, you deliberately spoofed the user interface for reasons which you considered harmless, non-malicious fun. I will grant that it was certainly non-malicious; whether it is in fact harmless is a subject for some debate - as is the question of what is the antecedent for that pronoun. Are we talking about your specific spoof banner? Or are we talking about spoof banners in general? If we allow yours, does that set a bad precedent?

Some things are worth arguing over. Some things are worth getting very angry over. Some things are not. We must choose our battles. I advise you to not choose this one; it does not benefit anything other than your sense of whimsy. If you would like, I will see if I can get David to apologize. DS 20:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've apologized repeatedly at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/UI spoofing. —David Levy 20:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I really think after so many abuese all in a matter of hours, David should re-file RfA and re-confirm community's confidence in him as an admin. IT's quite apparent that, in this case, he failed the responsibility we handed to him. Of course, I have no intention of violating WP:POINT but I definitely want my userpage to be the way I want before a resolution between the 2 sides is reached, which obviously is heading toward no consensus. I consider David's repeated reverts without communication or attempt to compromise abuse of admin power and userspace harassment. Anyway, 24 hrs time frame had passed and the banner is going back to its place before David decided to mess with it. I will remove it when I think it's ugly or when clear consensus shows me that it shouldn't be there. Peace out--Certified.Gangsta 09:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

1. "Without communication"? I provided detailed edit summaries and left a message on this talk page. You reverted mostly without edit summaries (sometimes ticking the "minor edit" checkbox) and removed the message from this page.

2. Why should I have "compromised" with you? There was a guideline against your behavior, and you sneakily violated it without even attempting to contact me.

3. Why do you need "clear consensus" to stop doing something that you know adds no value to the encyclopedia and upsets many people? Why can't you simply choose to be considerate (even if no rule forces you to)?

4. Will you remove the banner if Jimbo hands down a new policy prohibiting it? —David Levy 04:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michelle Marsh (model)

Please either stop re-inserting the unsourced comment that Ms. Marsh is "noted for her large, natural breasts", or find a citation for that statement. Regarding your statement in your edit summary that "not everything needs a cite," and referring me to the Keely Hazell article, I feel compelled to point out that the similar statement in the Hazell article has a supporting citation.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to publicize your personal opinions. Please honor our policies. Nandesuka 14:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So you want to be a sysop?

Drop by my user talk and let's chat. Durova^Charge! 05:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New message

Just like to tell you that on your practical joke orange bar pretending users have new messages is spelt wrong, it spells: you have new massages, as you probably realise the messages is spelt with an A instead of an I.Regards - Tellyaddict 19:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's intentional so that he has some excuse for keeping it up. --tjstrf talk 22:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wtf?? Excuse?? It's none of your business.--Certified.Gangsta 01:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is bullshit

Okay sorry to cuss out like this but the whole thing about User:Guardian Tiger is bs. That guy is claiming now there wasn't strong consensus for his community ban. I never seen anyone wikilawyer like this. Get a life, stop creating those f*cking socks and stalk me. (WP:POINT) Don't be a dick. If admins don't step in and stop this newly-created socks (after so many episodes already), I'ma go crazy. --Certified.Gangsta 01:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

He was never banned. Period. To argue the contrary would be yelling into the wind. Unless you can dig up proof that he has indeed been community banned, then do not accuse him of so. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

He was banned. Read the AN/I thread I provided. see User:Apocalyptic Destroyer block log, User talk:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH (1st sock he created), User talk:Guardian Tiger (unblock request turned down twice before page was protected) cause the creation of User talk:ApocalypticDestroyer's, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Guardian_Tiger_and_the_unblock_template where community consensus was reached. Page protection of User talk:ApocalypticDestroyer's results in the creation of User:LionheartX.--Certified.Gangsta 05:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I can give you the whole thorough timeline of the event from beginning to end. In fact since last summer.--Certified.Gangsta 05:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have read the entire ANI thread from beginning to end, and the only one who supported the ban was Dmcdevit, the proponent. Others only merely assented to the indefinite block, whether for abusive sockpuppetry, tendentious editing, or other related, plausible reasons. However, here is where the crucial difference comes in: support for an indefinite block is different from support for a community ban. I'm not wikilawyering here; these terms are not synonymous, and hence must be used with care. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How about when unblock request template were abused and the talkpage is protected?? Does that mean it gives them the right to create "block-evading" sockpuppets? In fact, I never seen an community block that actually went through the so-called due process. See User:PoolGuy for details.--Certified.Gangsta 05:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right; abuse of the unblock template does not entitle them to creation of abusive sockpuppets. However, you are mistaken about community bans; see WP:BAN (the theory) and WP:CN (the practice) on how an actual community ban is implemented. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So are we on the same page? Can we agree that it doesn't matter whether it's community ban or indef. block, this user is not welcomed because of continued abuse of unblock template and block-evading sockpuppets. Can we block Lion indef. now??--Certified.Gangsta 05:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I think Lion is gaming with semantics right now. Indef. block means serve your block indef. unless you go through the proper channel. (that is through unblock template) Once the talkpage is protected due to abuse, the only thing you can do is use the e-mail function, not creating more abusive socks.--Certified.Gangsta 05:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not condoning his use of socks. However, you need to break out of the "block all socks of blocked users" mindset and see his contributions to his current account. There is a reason why some people are balking at blocking this person. I know that you have been wronged by this user (from what I can gather), but embarking on a fight to block him off from Wikipedia, without giving him at least a single chance at reform, seems harsh to me. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We gave him so many opportunities to reform in the past. He just never cease edit warring, personal attack, 3RR, userspace harassment, stalking, trolling and the list goes on. I'm not gonna fish out diff. it's too time-consuming. Anyway, He blatantly lied in the past about his identity and disrupted checkuser process to prevent the checkusers from being accepted. He also accused admins of being biased. I don't see why he should be allowed to reform. We give him too many chances already. In fact, the only one who contested the community ban was Ben Aveling, a non-admin who is sympathetic to Lion's cause. Ben was later told by another admin Steel to stop chitchatting with banned user. See the ban-evasion AN/I thread for the diffs.--Certified.Gangsta 05:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You have almost convinced me, if only you didn't do one thing. You seem to base a lot of your argument on Ben Aveling's non-admin status. Admin privileges do not confer increased leverage in a dispute. Your insinuation to have Ben Aveling get out of the current thread on ANI was a tad incivil. You might want to tone that down, eh? Anyway, I now have no more objections. However, I remain neutral on whether to block him (or not). --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing though: I still don't think he is banned, but merely indefinitely blocked. Though a de facto ban of sorts, they are different nonetheless. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I pointed that out because someone else said he's an admin. It's not an insult. It's just that he's chit chatting with Lion's on his previous talkpage before it got protected.--Certified.Gangsta 06:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, in that case, never mind. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a no-brainer. Are you going to support the block??--Certified.Gangsta 06:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As I told you, I'm neutral. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your user page banner

As you are no doubt aware, there was clear consensus expressed at Wikipedia talk:User page/UI spoofing regarding banners which are identical to user interfaces. That is, that they are inappropriate. While there was no consensus that such a banner attracts a ban, I encourage you to act in accordance with the spirit of community consensus and maintain your previous "massages" version.

I like your Swedish Massages banner. Why not just use that? --Sumple (Talk) 02:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I get your point.--Certified.Gangsta 02:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saddened

There is no justice on wikipedia whatsoever.--Certified.Gangsta 07:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Culture of Taiwan

Ideogram did not violate 3RR due to his self-revert. However, the next violation will merit a 24 hr block. I mistakenly blocked you because I saw a load of reverts by you in the edit history, and neglected to look at the dates. Again, I apologize for my mistake, and have warned him instead. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem with his self-revert was that he did the self-revert AFTER I reported him, so it seems like he is deliberately avoiding a block. It is very different from realizing your mistake and instantly correct it, but waiting until someone reported you. Such action seems to warrant a block.--Certified.Gangsta 22:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Policy is ambiguous on this point. WP:3RR states:

If you have broken 3RR by mistake and now realize it, or if another user has left you a note on your talk page that points out that you broke 3RR, then you should revert your change back to the "other version," even though you may not like the previous version. In general, this should be enough to prevent you from being blocked, although there are no guarantees. If you seem to be the only person who feels that the article should be the way that you have made it, perhaps it is better the way everyone else thinks it should be.

I do hold the power to block him, but I do not wish to. I understand that you two have an ongoing dispute, but I do not wish to have it cloud everyone's heads. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We do but it's more like him doing stalking on John Profumo, Michelle Marsh, and others than a real dispute. He's stalking my edits and revert everything I edit.--Certified.Gangsta 22:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration re: Abu badali

Hi. I am writing you because you were one of the respondants on the RfC about Abu badali that was started back in November. There has been no substantive comment there for over a month and User:Abu badali has never bothered to respond to the RfC. The last comment on the talk page of the RfC was a suggestion to take it to arbitration, which is what I propose we do. Accordingly, I have created a shell/draft listing to add to the list of Arbitration Committee matters here. I've listed your new there, preliminarily, as a complaintant. If you are not interested in participating, please remove your name. If you are, please add your comments as we must prepare a 500 word summary of the case. Thanks for your attention - Jord 15:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinite block of LionheartX

Would you add the usual sockpuppet and indef blocked templates to this account's userpage? I'm pressed for time and, considering how much you went through, you may want to do the honors yourself. Durova^Charge! 14:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad it worked out, CG. I was just taking a look but I've been swamped, sorry. Bishonen | talk 14:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Sure thanks Durova. Nah,it's fine Bishy. I know it's chaotic time.--Certified.Gangsta 18:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible sock User:Intranetusa--Certified.Gangsta 07:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Wtf?? Show the diffs?? According to the history I did not violate 3RR.--Certified.Gangsta 01:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

See the thread relating to your actions on WP:ANI I have given the diffs there. Viridae^Talk 01:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not within 24hrs. Check the time. The 1st edit and last edit are not within 24 hrs.--Certified.Gangsta 01:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that. You were edit warring, continually reverting. 3RR is not a right and admin discretion may be used. Viridae^Talk 01:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This block is bs. At least get your fact straight before you randomly block someone just because a stalker reported me on AN/I. This is abuse of power.--Certified.Gangsta 01:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You were blocked for continually reverting ie Disruptive editing. That falls under 3RR so you were blocked for 3RR. Agressively arguing about it is not going to get you unblocked. Viridae^Talk 01:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know if you did enough investigation before issuing this harsh block. I wasn't edit warring. I was enforcing reasonable edits. Read the edits. While others are making insulting remarks such as telling me to "stfu" on Talk:Culture of Taiwan, stalking and revert all my contributions at John Profumo and Michelle Marsh (model). What's the problem with Ideogram anyway? He BROKE 3RR than purposely self revert after seeing that I reported him on the 3RR noticeboard. Now tell me who is edit warring?? Me or him??--Certified.Gangsta 01:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Your "reasonable edits" appear to be against consensus judging by the talk page. Viridae^Talk 05:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, someone sees the double standard on AN/I. I don't see myself as aggressive since all of the pages I edit are on my watchlist. Ideogram, on the other side, violated 3RR and stalk my contributions into areas he has no knowledge of (previous not interested in). This is an unjustified accusation on Ideogram's part.--Certified.Gangsta 01:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Which talkpage? I don't know where you arrive to the conclusion that I am the one who is being disruptive rather than Ideogram himself. The only thing I see are personal attacks against me and mass deletion with little or no justification whatsoever. You claimed I violated 3RR by deliberately gaming the rule. Well, this is a content dispute, all parties involved are responsible for the edit warring that occured. Taking side and blocking only certain people involved is an explicit example of double standard. You claimed that these articles were idle until I reverted them. This is untrue. For example, according to the history of Culture of Taiwan the article was relatively stable until Ideogram unilaterally decided to remove certain contents he doesn't like. So basically he instigated the edit war. At the same time, while continue to portray me the vandal, he purposely stalked my contributions and started revert wars at both John Profumo and Michelle Marsh (model). (both articles not within his usual scope) Obviously, these reverts lack any explanations or attempt to discuss on the relevant talkpages, so it is likely that he is reverting them based on personal vendetta rather than actual problem with the contents. Other users with similar interests such as User:Blueshirt and Ideogram used Talk:Culture of Taiwan as a forum to attack me. Since I was, at the time, in the middle of dealing with a sockpuppet violation, I disregard those attacks and refuse to join their silly games. I highly suggest you look into Ideogram's contributions and learn the whole case before unilaterally blocking one of the party when no clear violation ever took place. The AN/I statements by Ideogram and others members from Wikiproject:China are full of blatant lies and one-sided statements. I can refute every single one of them. Anyway, I stand by every single one of my edits I made. The only one who should be block is Ideogram himself. As for you, Viridae, I suggest you quickly unblock me for justice's sake. For your info, no other admins block others this way. If you choose to follow your own rule then this is an abuse of administrative privileges. I don't know your opinion on Taiwan-China relations, which is a very delicate topic on wikipedia. But blocking me instead of other pro-Chinese, communist editors is a fatal mistake and poor judgment.--Certified.Gangsta 05:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Answered in parts:

Which talkpage? - The talk page of the article Culture of Taiwan.
I don't know where you arrive to the conclusion that I am the one who is being disruptive rather than Ideogram himself. - Both of you were disruptive, Ideogram self reverted and I didn't handle that case. His most recent posts on WP:ANI are also fairly disruptive and he will be duly warned if that hasn't happened.
Well, this is a content dispute, all parties involved are responsible for the edit warring that occured. Taking side and blocking only certain people involved is an explicit example of double standard. You claimed that these articles were idle until I reverted them. This is untrue. For example, according to the history of Culture of Taiwan the article was relatively stable until Ideogram unilaterally decided to remove certain contents he doesn't like. So basically he instigated the edit war. - Yes all parties are responsible for an edit war, however this is a wiki, claiming that the war started because someone removed content they didn't like (and he did mention it on the talk page of the article) goes against the spirit of the encyclopedia. The edit war appears to have started when you reverted that change without discussing it on the talk page. It appears to have continued when he reverted to his prefered version and so on. There is no double standard here as far as I am concerned. I do not undo another admin's actions, hence why I haven't blocked ideogram for 3RR - that and wether gaming the system or not (WP:AGF) he did self revert. I am not interferring in that case because the actions are by another admin.
Paraphrased: Various accusation of wikistalking and harrasment agaisnt various editors - WP:RFC if you think you have justification and can show that there has been measures to resolve the disputes. If not, try and resolve them.
As for you, Viridae, I suggest you quickly unblock me for justice's sake. For your info, no other admins block others this way. If you choose to follow your own rule then this is an abuse of administrative privileges. I don't know your opinion on Taiwan-China relations, which is a very delicate topic on wikipedia. But blocking me instead of other pro-Chinese, communist editors is a fatal mistake and poor judgment. - The block stands unless some other admin decides to overturn it (I put it up for review in the thread with your name on it on WP:ANI). Ammusingly enough this is the second time this week I have been accused of being biased agaisnt one editor or another because I delved into a situation that involved hostile foreign relations (read up). I assure you has I assured Embargo, I am not racist (I am not Zionist) and no opinions I may have about these political situations have in any way affected any of my admin actions. Viridae^Talk 07:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you consider Talk:Culture of Taiwan a constructive discussion then you are crazy. The reason I choose not to get myself involve in the talkpage is because evidently Ideogram and his pro-Chinese allies are making incivil comments against me thus using it as a forum to discuss my conducts rather than the relevant article. Moreover, they added minor tweaks to the article that could potentially change the whole meaning of the article.--Certified.Gangsta 08:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw [[64]] on AN/I seems to be a rather meritless discussion that is aim to gather all users (most of them pro-Chinese) who had previous run-ins with me, so they can mount an anti-Certified.Gangsta campaign against me. This shouldn't even be on AN/I.--Certified.Gangsta 08:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring: Ideogram and Certified.Gangsta

Copied to both talk pages.

Glancing at your recent edits I notice that you've both been edit warring quite a lot over the past few days on at least two articles: Michelle Marsh ([65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]) and Culture of Taiwan [71] [72] [73] [74] [75].

This isn't the sort of behavior we expect from established editors, and it certainly isn't helping to build a consensus on article content. Please avoid further edit warring and use the talk page to seek agreement. Because you're both edit warring on unrelated articles, it also looks as if you may both have a personal conflict. If so, I recommend that you both attempt to resolve that by mediation. --Tony Sidaway 17:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Certified.Gangsta

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that a second person has certified the basis for this dispute, so the RfC is now approved. Accordingly, you may wish to make a statement outlining your point of view or add additional evidence to the page. Hopefully moving things into the formal dispute resolution process will centralize discussion and minimize bloodshed.--Danaman5 04:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's up?

CG, with all that's happened in the last week I'm surprised you haven't contacted me. My e-mail's operative in case you need to talk when you're blocked. I'd started coaching you - but things look like you need serious mentorship now. Keep in touch and pull back from the brink. Sincerely, Durova^Charge! 05:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)